5. This paragraph is based on the conclusion of the court's opinion in Greate Charte
v. Kennington, note 53 above: “But the court held, that this was a judicial act, and the party interested
is tacitly excepted. Lord Raymond, who lived in the parish of Abbotts-Langley, went off the Bench, when one of their orders came before the court. They said the
practice could not overturn so fundamental a rule of justice, as that a party interested
could not be a Judge. And as to the case of corporations, they said that if it appeared
that there were no other justices, it might be allowed; to prevent a failure of justice.
And therefore they confirmed the order of sessions.” The reporter adds, “Vide the act 16 Geo. 2, c. 18. to remedy this.” For this statute, see No. 27, note 2810. The court's last point is an interesting contrast to the absolute force given the
proposition that a man may not be judge in his own cause in the authorities cited
in the argument on the writs of assistance in 1761. See No. 44, note 7119. For another Massachusetts case in which both Greate Charte and the latter authorities were cited, see Jeffries v. Sewal (Suffolk Inferior Court,
Nov. 1762), reported in 1 JA, Diary and Autobiography230–231. As to the parish of Abbotts Langley, see King v. Inhabitants of Abbots Langley,
1 Barn. K.B. 148, 94 Eng. Rep. 103 (1729), in which Lord Raymond, “being of this parish, ... said he would give
no opinion.”